Bret Baier spars with the an Muhammed Ali-like President Obama

I’ve asked it before and I’m asking it again, why is it that anytime someone says, “let me be perfectly clear,” they proceed to be anything but. In the above interview, Obama reminded me of Muhammad Ali as he verbally danced like a butterfly around questions and attempted to sting like a bee by excoriating Baier for interrupting his long-winded attempts not to answer the questions.

The most amazing moment came, though, when the President flatly admitted that he doesn’t care how Congress passes the health bill as long as they do.  President Obama told Bret Baier of Fox News, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate.  What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform.  And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform.  And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.” In the parlance of the web, WTF?!  So what is he saying?  I believe he’s saying, it doesn’t matter how they pass it, as long as I get to use that new pen I bought for the signing. He sounds to me like someone who didn’t pay attention in civics class.

Slaughter House Rules

When I first heard talk of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” I scoffed.  Really?  Even Nancy Pelosi knows you cannot subvert the Constitution.  Certainly, the President would refuse to sign an illegally passed law.  I could not image any Administration openly supporting the passage of a law that had not been properly voted upon.  The House and Senate bills are not the same bill.  The Senate rewrote and substantially changed the House bill.  According to tradition and my understanding of the Constitution the house must vote upon the Senate version of the bill.

As I listened to the debate I was heavily impacted by the Republican references to Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.  It was so obvious this tactic was unconstitutional.  However, I notice the quoted text was always abbreviated (as indicated by ellipses.)  The researcher I am, I decided to reread the Constitution.  Wouldn’t it be ignorant to based my opinion on an excerpt?  But hey, most Americans base their opinions on far less – ask any liberal and they tell you what they “feel” is right.

The Constitution Assumes Democracy

Unfortunately, this is where I piss off my conservative friends, but please keep reading, then research it and convince me I’m wrong or that there is a better Article upon which to base a Constitutional challenge.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

This article appears to be talking primarily about overriding a Presidential veto.  I reread the entire Constitution excluding amendments to find any clear language regarding bills where the Senate substantially changes a House bill.  Clearly, over time Congress has established a long history of messing with bills and reconciling the versions into a new bill which is then passed by both houses.  But such procedures are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  It seems the details of how to originate a bill and pass a bill is largely left up to Congress.  When it says, “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States,” it does not even mention their having voted on that bill.

Scary omission as we have always assumed they vote.  Today, we have Congress run by ideologues, who comb through the Constitution looking for loopholes and what they can get away with.  I believe the founding fathers took it for granted that common sense would rule Congressional procedure. They assumed any bill presented to the President was the same bill voted for by both houses of Congress, but the fact is, they forgot to spell it out for the idiots of the future. Oops.

The good news may be that the long-standing tradition of both houses voting on the same bill may sway the Supreme Court to nullify the health care law.  The bad news is that Article I, Section 5 reads, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” and this will likely be the basis for Pelosi’s defense.

If Republicans were in the majority and the Slaughter Solution were even discussed, the press would be circling like sharks, insinuation dictatorship, ect.  It might have even been nicknamed the “Final Solution.” Instead today we see editorials and sycophants in the MSM defending it and claiming it’s commonly done.  To that I must exclaim, BULLSHIT.

This is an affront to American political tradition, democracy, and freedom.  If we let them get away with this, there will be no bound to how far they will go the next time!

The Idiot quote of the Year

Comes from Nancy Pelosi.

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”

Below is a list of wavering Representatives that NEED to hear from YOU.  Even if you are not a constituent call them.  Here are the phone numbers:

Rep. John Adler (NJ) 202-225-4765

Rep. Jason Altmire (PA) 202-225-2565

Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY) 202-225-3665

Rep. Brian Baird (WA) 202-225-3536

Rep. John Barrow (GA) 202-225-2823

Rep. Marion Berry (AR) 202-225-4076

Rep. Tim Bishop (NY) 202-225-3826

Rep. John Boccieri (OH) 202-225-3876

Rep. Dan Boren (OK) 202-225-2701

Rep. Rick Boucher (VA) 202-225-3861

Rep. Allen Boyd (FL) 202-225-5235

Rep. Bobby Bright (AL) 202-225-2901

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA) 202-225-6131

Rep. Chris Carney (PA) 202-225-3731

Rep. Ben Chandler (KY) 202-225-4706

Rep. Travis Childers (MS) 202-225-4306

Rep. Jim Costa (CA) 202-225-3341

Rep. Artur Davis (AL) 202-225-2665

Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN) 202-225-6831

Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN) 202-225-3915

Rep. Steve Driehaus (OH) 202-225-2216

Rep. Chet Edwards (TX) 202-225-6501

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN) 202-225-4636

Rep. Gabby Giffords (AZ) 202-225-2542

Rep. Bart Gordon (TN) 202-225-4231

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD) 202-225-2801

Rep. Baron Hill (IN) 202-225-5315

Rep. Paul Hodes (NH) 202-225-5206

Rep. Tim Holden (PA) 202-225-5546

Rep. Larry Kissell (NC) 202-225-3715

Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL) 202-225-2706

Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD) 202-225-5311

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) 202-225-5871

Rep. Dan Maffei (NY) 202-225-3701

Rep. Betsy Markey (CO) 202-225-4676

Rep. Jim Marshall (GA) 202-225-6531

Rep. Jim Matheson (UT) 202-225-3011

Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC) 202-225-2731

Rep. Michael McMahon (NY) 202-225-3371

Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA) 202-225-4031

Rep. Walt Minnick (ID) 202-225-6611

Rep. Harry Mitchell (AZ) 202-225-2190

Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA) 202-225-4276

Rep. Glenn Nye (VA) 202-225-4215

Rep. Bill Owens (NY) 202-225-4611

Rep. Collin Peterson (MN) 202-225-2165

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND) 202-225-2611

Rep. Mike Ross (AR) 202-225-3772

Rep. Mark Schauer (MI) 202-225-6276

Rep. Kurt Schrader (OH) 202-225-5711

Rep. Heath Shuler (NC) 202-225-6401

Rep. Ike Skelton (MO) 202-225-2867

Rep. Zach Space (OH) 202-225-6265

Rep. John Tanner (TN) 202-225-4714

Rep. Gene Taylor (MS) 202-225-5772

Rep. Harry Teague (NM) 202-225-2365

Rep. Dina Titus (NV) 202-225-3252

Rep. Charlie Wilson (OH) 202-225-5705

CNN covers Obama’s campaign

Regardless of which side of the health care debate you may find yourself on, you should be very concerned about how any health care bill is passed.  Democrats claim that their proposed use of “reconciliation” to force their health care bill into law is nothing extraordinary, but rather a standard parliamentary move used repeatedly in the past and even used by Republicans. In the noon hour today, CNN’s Tony Harris repeated the Democrat claim, listing historical examples in-which “reconciliation” has been used.

The problem for me is that the procedure is not called “reconciliation,” rather it’s called, “BUDGETARY RECONCILIATION”. The not-so-subtle difference is that the process was created to pass spending bills, NOT whole new laws.  The Democrats are not attempting to pass a budget or tax bill.  They are trying to fundamentally alter the American health care system and in effect, the economy.  I know my opinion may mean nothing to you, however, it is a fact that in nearly every instance in-which Budgetary Reconciliation has been employed it was to pass a budgetary or tax bill.  Where it has been employed otherwise it was an abuse of power - regardless of whether it was Democrats or Republicans who did it.

When Budget Reconciliation was used

So how has Budgetary Reconciliation been used in the past?  Let’s look at the historical uses of Budgetary Reconciliation and which party used it.

(Source: NYT, “S”=Senate “H”=House, Controlling parties only updated when there was a change.)

• 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act     (S-R    H-D)
• 1982 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
  
• 1982 Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act
• 1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
• 1986 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
• 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act     (S-D    H-D)
• 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
• 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
• 1996 Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunity Act   (S-R    H-R)
• 1997 Balanced Budget Act     (S-D    H-D)
• 2001 Economic Growth & Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (S-D   H-R)
• 2003 Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act  (S-R    H-R)
• 2005 Deficit Reduction Act
• 2005 Tax Increase Prevention & Reconciliation Act
• 2007 College Cost Reduction & Access Act  (S-D    H-D)

So we can see that in 30 years this procedure has been used 15 times.  In all but two (2) uses it was used properly to pass budget or tax acts.  Only twice has it been employed to pass non-budget items, in 1996 when Republicans pushed through welfare reform and in 2007 when Democrats rammed through a student aid program.  If you will open the NYT graphic linked above, you can see reconciliation wasn’t even needed in most of these cases.  In eight of the 15 cases the bills were passed with clear super-majorities.

American History: Protecting the Minority

Why should Congress even waste time with super-majority votes?  Shouldn’t a simple majority be all we ever need?  I mean, we elect Presidents and every other official with simple majorities, right?  However, the founding fathers set the government up to protect minorities. What? You’re surprised?  It’s likely you are, as liberals have polluted our understanding of American history, portraying our ancestors as murderous bigots.

True the founding fathers, for the most part, didn’t have Africans or Native Americans in mind, but they did protect minorities.  The House of Representatives directly represents the population and in theory it should reflect the will of the people.  However, the Senate does not reflect population, as every state no matter it’s size, has exactly two votes.

They established the House  as the LOWER body of Congress, not the upper body.  The minority was empowered to stop bills through the process of filibuster and it requires a super-majority of 2/3 to prevent or stop it.  You see they wanted to provide a process whereby the minority can stop legislation that may be harmful or disadvantageous to them.

In 1974, Democrats in Congress, established Reconciliation as a method to pass spending bills.  Effectively undermining the minority.  I find the entire procedure to be counter to the intentions of the founding fathers.  (A note to the gotcha-crowd, a super-majority is not required to pass legislation – only to prevent or stop a filibuster.)  What they are attempting now is what Democrats have become very comfortable doing, crushing opposition by prohibiting the opposition from speaking.

Closing Observations

It is worth noting that my family has been touched by cancer as well.  I understand the high price of health care and the current problems with insurance.  I am currently trapped and unable to voluntarily change jobs as my wife’s history of cancer make her a high risk.  I know the cost of cancer.  I was lucky, my “Cadillac” health insurance covered the vast majority of our costs.  I am sensitive to the plight of Natoma Canfield.  I listened to her tell her own story on CNN (BTW, who else thinks CNN could be on the Obama payroll?) Natoma’s story underlines the need to do something but does that mean doing something stupid, reckless, or dangerous to national solvency?

Perhaps the most amazing statement made supporting the use of Reconciliation to pass this health care bill came from the President just moments ago (as I was writing.)  The President emotionally and forcefully said, “They don’t want us readin’ polls.  …  they want us to show courage and act now.”  Wow, if you are a thinking person what would you think this meant?  Is the President saying the majority of Americans want this bill passed without regard to polling data?  What would that mean and why would the majority care since, if indeed the majority wanted this bill passed, then the polling data would simply back that fact up.  Ah, but the polling data shows – even in the MSM – that the majority don’t want this bill.  Rather, I believe what the President is actually saying is, damn the majority, I want this bill passed because some Americans including and especially me want it passed. This is signature rhetoric from a radical ideologue.

If you’re old enough to have travelled in the 1980s and even the 90s you can recall the thrill and exhilaration of travel.  If not, then you may not realize travelling hasn’t always been drudgery, fraught with inconvenience, and invasions of privacy.  But hey, you’re safer.  Yeah, it’s sooo worth it!

Yesterday, Bob Schieffer, of CBS News, scared the crap out of me.  Well not literally but listen to his reaction to the Bedell and Stack attacks.  “Any society will always include a small number of the deranged who pose a danger to the rest of us, but here is the difference: In this age of the Internet, such people can find one another, talk to one another and – no matter how twisted their view – find those who agree and sympathize with them.” … “I would be the last person to restrict freedom of speech, but responsible people recognize there are limits.” Actually, Mr. Schieffer, you were not the last person to call for restrictions on free speech, you were the first. It is this attitude that creates the crazies.  They feel trapped by an ever-growing government that resembles a cloud of locust more than a guardian of freedom.

Bedell and Stack were clearly on the fringe, but should we restrict American freedoms further in the name of protection?  People wake up now or you risk waking up in a very safe American version of the Soviet Union. Freedom has a price and that price includes some risk.

The Left is serious about not letting any crisis go to waste.  Not only can these attacks be used to restrict freedom, but they are used to attack and discredit political enemies.  Perhaps the greatest threat to big-government is the Tea Party movement.  The Tea Parties are a purely reactionary grass-root political response to the massive power-grab that started with G.W. Bush in 2008 and accelerated after B.H. Obama’s coronation in 2009.

Don’t be fooled, any opposition to the Socialist Left must be crushed and that begins by portraying all Conservatives and Tea Party supporters as violent, dangerous nuts.  The hypocrisy comes from the fact that since September 11, 2001, those on the Left including the President, have strove to excuse, minimalise, and ignore Islamic extremism, they ignore or accept environmental terror, and justify violent left-wing political activists.  Yet, much is made when someone is pushed beyond sanity by the IRS.

Taxes involved?  Did the attacker write an angry anti-tax suicide note?  Oh, must be one of those wacky Tea Party-types.  We should watch all those people and maybe restrict their freedom of speech. They’re DANGEROUS, you know.

Erick Erickson posted a good response to Democrat insistence on calling all anti-government violence right-wing terror.  He writes exactly what has been swimming around my head for the past week.

Murder as Politics: An Inconvenient Truth

author: ERICK ERICKSON

It is sad that this even has to be pointed out. With Joseph Patrick Bedell, the Democrat and Pentagon shooter, and Joe Stack, the crazed and angry Austinite, being lumped in as Tea Party activists, the right feels compelled to respond to a badly misguided media showing its left-wing bias.

Stack and Bedell, like Timothy McVeigh before them, are considered conservatives by the left, despite very clearly hating the right. In fact, if we were to be honest they like McVeigh are of a branch of anarcho-libertarian that hates both left and right.

But in a day and age when the media dwells on simple narratives devoid of reality, it is easier to lump them all in as conservatives, helping feed left-wing narratives about a violent right. And so the right must respond.

For just one example consider the Associated Press trying to blame Jim DeMint’s rhetoric as incitement for Bedell, a Democrat, and Stack a Marx quoting nut. This is the 2010 equivalent of Bill Clinton blaming Rush Limbaugh for Timothy McVeigh’s bombing in Oklahoma City. Never mind the facts, score points against the right.

Therefore, it is time for one of those inconvenient truths.

At least since the 19th century, it has been the left employing murder and death as a political weapon. From Hitler to Mao to Lenin to Stalin to Chavez to Castro to Guevera to Arafat to Pol Pot to Mugabe to [insert your favorite American union] to Margaret Sanger the left and its heroes have used death, violence, and murder to advance their agenda.

For every Pinochet or Netanyahu (unfairly) the left grasps for, the list is three times as long on the left.

It is inconvenient. The left will try to laugh it off or attack the person pointing out, but the truth remains. It is not conservatives burning down homes in Washington State with the ELF.

It is not conservatives throwing blood on women wearing fur. It is not conservatives burning down the Texas Governor’s Mansion during riots. It is not conservatives rioting during G-8 summits. .

It is and has always been the left. Deal with it.

Doh!

“We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans. And we don’t intend to.”

The recent election outcome in Massachusetts should be evidence enough about whose voice was drowned out.

Regardless, when you look at the contributions made during the presidential campaign, the numbers don’t back up Obama’s claim, which is turning out to be typical for him.

The overwhelming majority of McCain’s contributions came from individuals, who gave almost $200 million. The next largest contributors fell to Political Action Committees who contributed $1.4 million and represents around .712% of the individual’s total.

When Obama realized he could obtain more money from individuals Obama pledged not to accept money from PACs so his numbers are even lower. Individual campaign contributions totaled almost $659 million while PAC contributions amounted to $1,500.

Source

I’ll never forget when the wicked witch of the west, (aka Pelosi), sneered and called the tea party protests, “Astroturf.”  Well, Frank, Pelosi, and Mr. President, sit up and take notice, the “astroturf” just kicked your asses.  Tonight, Martha Coakley (D) was defeated by a Republican in the most liberal state in the Union, barring possibly California and New York.  Why, perhaps Carvile will say, “it’s the economy, stupid,” but I think it’s health care.

I have not been this elated in years.

Today we will finally put 2009 behind us.  Truly a historic year, how it will finally be remembered is debatable at this point.  History rarely frames events with the same level of importance we assign them in the moment.  Will 2009 be the counterpart to 1989?  1989 marked the fall of communism and the beginning of democracy in Eastern Europe.  Will 2009 be remembered as the fall of free markets and the beginning of dictatorial government in the United States?  Or will the extreme arrogance of Democrats now holding both the Executive and Legislative branches of government result in their demise?  Perhaps 2009 will go down as the year overly ambitious liberals buried themselves.  I’m just asking asking the questions.  Now, let’s briefly review some of the year’s historic events.

• America inaugurates its first non-Caucasian President. President Obama is of mixed race – the union of the two dominate American races.  Certainly there are both whites and blacks who still wish to form their opinions about Obama based on his race, however, overall, the nation has shown itself to have put enough, if not all, of its prejudice in the past.

• America moves from a free-market economy to a mixed-market economy. The Federal government, through bailout mechanisms, took ownership in several major corporations, including majority ownership in some notable companies.  Additionally Congress and the President spend the bulk of the year in efforts to seize, and thus socialize, 17% of the free market.  It is interesting that the same government that cannot run Medicare or Social Security efficiently or effectively, insists it can run health care better than private business.  Obama joked during the Presidential campaign about those who accused him of being a Socialist.  He never denied the charge, he just laughed it off.  It was an effective defense, insinuating the charge was false without an actual denial, thus blunting further attacks.  During one of the debates, Obama challenged us to judge him by those he surrounded himself with.  Once in office he populated his administration with left-wing radicals, communists, pedophile-tolerants, and certifiable nut-jobs.
• Federal deficit exceeds all previous deficits by more than FOUR-fold. Democrats and Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, complained bitterly about the 2008 “Bush” deficit of $458.55B.  Within days of taking office, Obama threatened disaster unless government spending limits were completely removed and before year’s end the federal deficit soared to $1,841.19B.  That is nearly $2 (TWO) TRILLION more than the government collected from taxes and fees, – in one year.  Yet, not one Liberal has complained.

• The President embarked on a world tour to apologize for and lessen American global political dominance. It is my assumption that historians will elevate the importance of Obama’s “Prostration tour,” especially if America suffers economically and politically from its diminished global role?  Obama’s capitulation to Russia on European missile defense, his ignored threats to North Korea that ended with inaction following a N.Korean missile test, his failure to support freedom efforts in Iran, his support of a Central American dictator, his slow and certainly lackluster response to international terrorism will certainly do little to bolster American influence and I must wonder what the long-term impact will be after four years of such leadership.

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – aka “The Stimulus”. A panicked followup response to Bush’s panicky TARP bill that sought to stimulate the economy and “save or create” jobs.  The bill was never read by anyone in Congress or by the President yet both the President and Democrats in Congress assured the public this massive spending bill would save the nation and keep unemployment below 8%.  In the end, phony numbers were produced attempting to proof the Stimulus package had been successful.  Even if one accepts the now discredited examples and jobs “saved,” each job was saved at a cost that dwarfed the benefits provided.  It would have been far more effective to have directly distributed the funds.  Had that been done, many instant millionaires would have been created, thus allowing the jobs to be dispatched without a negative impact.  Additionally, some of those people might have used their monies to start businesses that would have created jobs.  However, it was much more “Liberal” to lose 99% of the money in government waste.  On the up side, more government employees are making in excess of $100k than EVER before. While you lost your jobs, government employees got nice raises and when you finally find work guess what?  Yep, you’ll get to pay more taxes to fund those raises.  And what about that $800B?  Mostly unaccounted for.

• Title XIII of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 – aka Cash for Clunkers. The perfect example of how government spending can stimulate the economy.  The program overran projected costs by three-fold and had to be renewed to succeed.  During its short run the program helped sell nearly 700k cars.  American cars?  No, mostly foreign imports.  Effectively stimulating Asian economies more than our own.  However, the experiment proved my contention that government stimulus programs only stimulate while the spending is ongoing and have no residual benefit.  As soon as the program ended new car sales in the United States plunged 23% from the previous year, the lowest sales in a month since February.  (On a side note, you have to laugh at MSNBC who in their giddy bias reported that the program came in under its $3B budget – completely ignoring that $3B was over the initial budget was $1B.)

• Helping Families Save their Homes Act of 2009. This bill was a fraud from the start.  It was pitched as a law that would allow liberal judges (ok judges, but we know what they meant) to modify loans in favor of defaulting borrowers.  They removed that language and instead the law jumbled around mortgage rules and made minor changes to bankruptcy laws.  In the end it helped only a few on the verge of financial collapse.  We can be thankful the original language never saw the light of day, it would have corrupted the concept of legal contracts and jeopardized the economy even further.

• Elected officials insult and despise their own constituents. In spite of all the debate and historic vote wrangling/buying the most historic aspect of the health care debate was the utter disrespect and complete disregard elected officials demonstrated toward the very people who elected them.  The people of Massachusetts’ 4th Congressional District should not forget Barney Frank’s remarks to one of their own who dared question his motives in pushing government health care.  Pelosi, queen of the House, labeled all opposition to HR3200 as phony, lobbyist-purchased, theater.  Hundreds of thousands marched on Washington while Congress buried their heads in the carpet.  When the debate began they acted as if the will of the people was unimportant, the leadership excluded Republicans from the process, threatened dissenters within their ranks, purchased votes for billions in public monies, and refused to allow debate.*

• Homeland Secretary hails failure to screen a terrorist a success story. Christmas day a terrorist who had been reported by his own father and who had attended a terrorist training camp, was allowed on a commercial jet bound for the United States.  Only happen-stance prevented the loss of 300 lives.  That vicious act of terror was not averted by the keen eye of security personnel nor was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab stopped by the CIA, the FBI, or the DHS.  It was prevented by accident, device failure.  DHS, secretary Janet Napolitano, initially hailed the incidence as a success story.  She gets my IDIOT OF THE YEAR AWARD.  At the top, President Obama failed to even respond for several days and when he did his response was weak and tepid.  Not once did he utter the words “Islamic Terror.”  Meanwhile , we have administration officials making excuses such as citing that there are too many people on the watch list.  There are about half a million people on the watch list.  If we consider that my credit card company, Capital One, has 46.3 million cards in distribution, yet if someone uses my card in Idaho, I will get a call within minutes from Capital One asking if I made an unusual purchase.  So how can a private company respond so quickly when they are tracking 92 times as many people?  — Once again, you want these people running health care?

So there you have it.**  Not a pretty year and don’t expect 2010 to be any better.  Democrats will be rushing full speed to push through their Socialist agenda before the public can return them to private life.  Their best hope for holding power is to manipulate unemployment numbers leading into the November election.  A plan to do just that is in play already.  Facts are not things to stop or even slow down a true ideologue.  The light at the end of the tunnel comes in November when Democrats will yield their super-majority and finally listen to their constituents as they tell them to GO HOME!

* Health care is still not law but let’s face it, there’s little chance of stopping passage.  We need to concentrate of the legal challenges that lie ahead.

** I left Cap and Trade off the list since it never completed its journey and we still have a chance to stop this job-killer.  If I forgot anything please add it in the comments below.  I love to see a good debate!

Here’s what the poll said:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.

Source:

I certainly hope that 53% of Americans who voted for Obama and the press, who are still “in the tank” for him, learn the importance of properly vetting a candidate. It makes you wonder where their heads were.

I wonder what the left-wingnuts are feeling like after realizing they’ve been deftly herded by sheep-dog Soros and his media machine.

The press, if they still have an independent backbone in them, might get a lesson as well when they realize the readers, who the press are supposed to serve, will never be able to trust them to do their job of providing America with some in-depth reporting. However, seeing how the media houses are stacked to the rafters with lemming-like liberal reporters, I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting for that to ever happen.

Baa-a-aaaa

The tally includes 172 individuals and 33 organisations, besting the 2005 number of 199 nominations.

Apparently, you don’t have to actually do anything to be eligible for nomination. The Nobel web-site only says:

• The delegation from Bolivia will be pushing for a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights, which the country’s President Evo Morales says “supersede the rights of human beings.”

• A group called GenderCC (Women for Climate Justice) rejects using distractions like “numbers” and “target dates” to track and fight climate change, and doesn’t appear very interested in the environment itself. Instead, it hopes to implement “gender-mainstreaming” and ensure that the U.N. guarantees the fullest participation of “feminist scientists” at every level.

• The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is putting on an exhibit to “explore how thoughts affect matter and how a shift in consciousness can transform current deteriorating conditions” for the environment.

• International Planned Parenthood is putting on a show about how to increase contraception in the third world to stop babies — who later become adults — from ruining the environment.

• Many others appear redundant, including nine events on climate justice and 39 on a single U.N. cause celebre called REDD — reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries — which adds up to well over a 40-hour workweek of seemingly repetitive hearings on a single topic.

They should try to gain some credibility. Right now, they have none. Al Gore even canceled his $3200/head Power Point presentation of new “data”. His new book is based on those “facts”.

DOH!